This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Suggestion for new keywords in bugzilla
- From: "Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo at libero dot it>
- To: "Nathanael Nerode" <neroden at twcny dot rr dot com>
- Cc: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,"Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 14:31:31 +0200
- Subject: Re: Suggestion for new keywords in bugzilla
- References: <40d401c32114$3cf24a00$c64f2697@bagio> <3ECE4105.4090104@twcny.rr.com>
Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>> I think the biggest difference is between diagnostic bugs which are
request
>> for enhancements and not strictly necessary, and diagnostic bugs which
are
>> really bugs (or at least, can be considered as such). And this difference
>> is already taken into account by the Severity of the bug. In other words
I
>> suggest that your missing-diagnostic be simply a diagnostic keyword with
>> Severity = enhancement, and you misleading-diagnostic be a diagnostic
>> keyword with Severity != enhancement.
> This isn't *exactly* what I was thinking of. A missing diagnostic might
> be a warning which is supposed to trigger and doesn't. A misleading
> diagnostic would be one which triggers but shouldn't.
>
> It may be that the distinction is not valuable. I defer to others.
Since we got no more comments on this issue, I'm creating a new keyword
"diagnostic" for now, and removing all the [diagnostic] stamps. We can still
split diagnostic into smaller parts later if we need. OTOH, Gaby never asked
for it.
Giovanni Bajo